0:00
/
Preview

The Problem With 32" Wheels

32" wheels - are they just another solution to a problem that doesn't exist?
Video: Seth // Edit: Curtis // Words Below: Daniel

I was a slow adopter of 29” wheels when the first large wave of bikes hit the market in full force about 15 years ago. It wasn’t a matter of being able to buy the bike - I had any bike that Specialized made at my disposal as I worked for Big Red at the time. The bikes were just, in my opinion, terrible. The tire options were extremely limited outside of XC options, and there weren’t too many redeeming factors when it came to riding technical trails on them.

However, things quickly changed. Over the course of two seasons and one three-year product cycle, tires appeared, suspension was dialed, geometry improved across all sizes, and the bikes seemed to turn a corner. I eventually was happy to be on 29” wheels and have stayed part of that camp ever since.

The push to 32” wheels is like a flashback to the move from 26” to 29” with one key difference - there is no mid-size as there was with 27.5” wheels. After all, 27.5” wheels were, in a way, a “comfort” measure to help warm riders up to the idea of larger wheels. At least that’s one of my theories, supported by some engineers and product managers that will remain unnamed.

My question is: Are 32” wheels being made because people are asking for them? Because that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case. Or is it out of fear that their race teams will be off the back and therefore the main marketing engine they use - racing - becomes obsolete? As does the brand.

The funny thing is that mountain biking has been here before, even before 29” wheels. The original 26” mountain bike wheel was not necessarily chosen because it was the perfect diameter for riding off-road. It was largely inherited from the bikes people were already modifying: old balloon-tire cruisers, klunkers, and Schwinn-style bikes that happened to use fat 26” tires. Those parts existed. The tires existed. The frames were available, strong, and cheap enough to abuse. In other words, 26” became the mountain bike standard not because it was proven ideal, but because it was available, practical, and already sitting in the parts bin. It was a reliable standard.

User's avatar

Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of Berm Peak.